The SMB data doesn’t take into consideration flow of ice away from underneath, but it is pretty difficult to believe that the huge discrepancy between the two data sets is real. In any case, the claimed ice loss is not due to in situ melting. It is either data error or flow of ice into the ocean – which would have nothing to do with global warming.

The problem with gravity data is that it is affected not only by ice, but also by other things like movement of the land underneath the ice. The GRACE people have failed to take that into consideration, and have made wildly exaggerated claims of ice loss in the past which they had to stand down on.

Without this volcanic magma the “ice loss” should even be lower.
By adding energy from the underground deep down buried ice massess can melt-
but i’m pretty sure the freaks od science would even this blameon AGW instead of volcanic activity.

So whatever Greenland ice loss there might be (if any) is obviously from geothermal heat and has zilch to do with global warming. Another totally shameless attempt to deliberately mislead the public by the alarmist crowd.

I’m shocked! But the earth HAS to be loosing ice somewhere. It’s essential to the alarmist argument. Just a matter of time before GRACE discovers an enormous loss of ice from northern Australia, southern USA, Costa Rica, Mexico, Morocco, and Egypt.

I have heard that GRACE measurements indicate that sea level is falling or at least not rising in many areas. So they don’t use GRACE for sea level measurement! It seems that when an expensive piece of equipment doesn’t work as intended they can always use it for Political Science rather than real science.

You can’t just put the SMB graphs back to back as you’ve done because you don’t take into account the calving at the ice face. As the DMI Greenland page says: The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.

DMIs charts don’t agree with their statements. Calving is a generally more a function of ice gain than loss. When the ice sheet stops calving and recedes from the coast is a sign of net ice loss. I’ve been checking out DMIs site for years and that statement of 200 Gt/year ice loss has been there without revision for as long as I can remember. Obviously it isn’t being changed to reflect the reality year for year.

“The SMB data doesn’t take into consideration flow of ice away from underneath, but it is pretty difficult to believe that the huge discrepancy between the two data sets is real. In any case, the claimed ice loss is not due to in situ melting. It is either data error or flow of ice into the ocean – which would have nothing to do with global warming.”

And yes, you “can” put the graphs back to back – because they are contiguous data sets.

GRACE is the perfect vehicle if you are doing junk ice mass science. GRACE had known position deficiencies at launch and it was proposed in 2012 to correct/calibrate these. I never heard if these were actually corrected by project “Grasp” but any graph showing data thru 2012 is just known garbage. Considering Antarctica is 14 million million square meters in area…being off by even a mm is…14 billion cu meters.

From the reference:
“Despite the important advances enabled by the GRACE-based approach, this tandem mission has proved inadequate in removing potential biases at the mm level. The deficiencies are due in part to the lack of a rigorous calibration of the GRACE antennas on the ground prior to launch. In particular, the antennas were not calibrated on the spacecraft. While GRACE offers a relatively clean geometry, simulation analysis show significant levels of both phase and pseudorange multipath. These effects could bias the effective antenna phase center by an unknown amount. Equally important, GRACE’s orbit is strongly impacted by the unpredictable, and difficult to model atmospheric drag.”

DMI vs GRACE:
So you basically have 2 groups, using 2 methodologies that don’t jibe, with data that go in OPPOSITE directions – and they don’t make any effort to harmonize or explain their OPPOSING conclusions – and even their exculpatory clauses are fishy.

Perhaps they’re playing both sides of the fence and have no intention of synching/harmonizing the data?

Gravity is the weakest of the 4 forces by a long shot. If you compare gravity and magnetism, gravity is basically a rounding error at the 38th decimal place.

You can resist the gravity of the entire earth with feeble leg muscles. I’m a bit skeptical about anyone measuring the minutest changes in gravity from snowfall, and then claiming accuracy of 234 km3?…. sure it wasn’t 233 km3 or 235 km3?